Yeah, it's the same thing when I made the Age of Steam maps, and later on found out there was a railway board game named Age of Steam somewhere. I asked the admin if I have to change it, but just a coincidental name is not enough to be a copyright infringement.

Actually, it might need to be even more. Balloon & Assassins aside, it is 7 territories away to annihilate both enemy camps, but only 5 to annihilate the castle.

I still think each Base Ship needs to attack a different Supply Ship as well. The 4 quarters can individually attack a tower or dock and quickly move on to the enemy, while only one base ship can attack a supply ship and all three can attack the landing point - which is still 3 territories away from attacking your opponent (unlike the towers).

Not only is it bottle-necked on either side of your primary starting positions, but the blue side has a big advantage early on to use all their forces. Whereas red's first turn is pretty much useless. They attack the landing point or supply ship and then reinforce. Meanwhile blue might already be on top of your artillery.

Red is further handicapped by having two camps to the one castle. Though Red only needs to defend one camp, that other 5 troops is set far back from the front lines, whereas - again - blue can use all 4 of its quarters simultaneously.

If you make it one camp and give red a force closer to the artillery, then make more connections between Base Ships and supply ships, that will help some.

Also, it isn't clear in the legend that you can only receive bonuses for your side. (i.e. blue can't get a red ship bonus)

lostatlimbo wrote:Shouldn't the Castle be 10 to match the 5+5 of the Camps?

Actually, it might need to be even more. Balloon & Assassins aside, it is 7 territories away to annihilate both enemy camps, but only 5 to annihilate the castle.

each player starts with 25 troops split over 5 terits. it impossible to attack the castle or the 2 camps in round 1 so it really does not matter if the castle starts with 5 or 10 because you can't reach it. and by the time you're able to reach it the other player has plenty of turns to protect it.

lostatlimbo wrote:I still think each Base Ship needs to attack a different Supply Ship as well. The 4 quarters can individually attack a tower or dock and quickly move on to the enemy, while only one base ship can attack a supply ship and all three can attack the landing point - which is still 3 territories away from attacking your opponent (unlike the towers).Not only is it bottle-necked on either side of your primary starting positions, but the blue side has a big advantage early on to use all their forces. Whereas red's first turn is pretty much useless. They attack the landing point or supply ship and then reinforce. Meanwhile blue might already be on top of your artillery.

will do.

lostatlimbo wrote:Red is further handicapped by having two camps to the one castle. Though Red only needs to defend one camp, that other 5 troops is set far back from the front lines, whereas - again - blue can use all 4 of its quarters simultaneously.

If you make it one camp and give red a force closer to the artillery, then make more connections between Base Ships and supply ships, that will help some.

adding more connections in the red area will result in a lot of clutter.i think the best solution would be to remove blue's ability to attack any terit within city limits and just add some connections there. this way blue won't be able to use all his troops at once and he'll have to travel a bit to the artillery.

lostatlimbo wrote:Also, it isn't clear in the legend that you can only receive bonuses for your side. (i.e. blue can't get a red ship bonus)

i'll mention it

“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku

Hm, for the name, there's nothing on the map that really has to do anything with kings. Perhaps a back story is in order? Or else you could simple call the map "Besiege", though I rather like the "Clash of Kings" logo. Let me know if you want a back story, DiM, I'm sure I could whip one up

How did you get look for land on map? What program do you use? Is it free?I'm using GIMP myself.

most of my maps look ready to roll because i don't like posting rough drafts i try to make the graphics as close to the final product as possible. however there's still a lot of fine tuning plus the gameplay tweaks.

“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku

Victor Sullivan wrote:Hm, for the name, there's nothing on the map that really has to do anything with kings. Perhaps a back story is in order? Or else you could simple call the map "Besiege", though I rather like the "Clash of Kings" logo. Let me know if you want a back story, DiM, I'm sure I could whip one up

-Sully

yeah, i guess a short story could help set the atmosphere better

“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku

Seems like if you were trying to take a castle by siege, you would want to cut off their supply too.

I'm not sure if that would improve gameplay or not, but I'm a stickler for story.

realism-wise it'd make a whole lot more sense for an attacker to attack a supply caravan then vice versa but gameplay wise i'm not so sure.

you're both right

realism-wise the attacker would have huge forces and even get reinforcements while the defender would slowly starve until defeated or until it surrenders. but as we all know gameplay trumps realism. if i were to make this as realistic as possible the defender would probably have to lose the game each and every time

“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku

Seems like if you were trying to take a castle by siege, you would want to cut off their supply too.

I'm not sure if that would improve gameplay or not, but I'm a stickler for story.

realism-wise it'd make a whole lot more sense for an attacker to attack a supply caravan then vice versa but gameplay wise i'm not so sure.

you're both right

realism-wise the attacker would have huge forces and even get reinforcements while the defender would slowly starve until defeated or until it surrenders. but as we all know gameplay trumps realism. if i were to make this as realistic as possible the defender would probably have to lose the game each and every time